U.S. government owes over $100M for TSA's patent infringement(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. government owes over $100M for TSA's patent infringement
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-government-owes-over-100-million-tsas-patent-infringement-2021-10-25/
152 comments
That's literally not free since they would have had to turn the security process into more of a clown show with advertisements.
As it happens, one of the violations the TSA admitted to was the part of the patent that covers putting advertisements in the trays.
(It boils my blood that the patent system rewards the people who essentially “call dibs” on ideas like this, instead of the people who build things.)
(It boils my blood that the patent system rewards the people who essentially “call dibs” on ideas like this, instead of the people who build things.)
How is putting advertisement on ANYTHING patentable, that's driving me nuts.
If there is space, you can put a ad on it, that's a trivial truth older then the patent system itself.
If there is space, you can put a ad on it, that's a trivial truth older then the patent system itself.
Keep in mind, a system of rules is just a system of rules. It takes someone to come along and knowingly look for "ah ha, gotcha" loopholes in a system to exploit for their own advantage.
It's completely possible to look at a system, realize there's a flaw, and not take advantage of it--perhaps even try to fix the flaw you discovered.
In the US, we're increasingly normalizing the culture of "well, it's legal" as to whether we should or shouldn't do something--the baseline of morales is becoming law.
Part of this is driven by competitive forces that put us at critical disadvantages if we don't follow suit. Taking the "high road" often costs more and hinders us to points we can't survive, so even if you don't want to play exploitative games on systems and people, in some cases, your very livelihood may actually depend on it.
"Don't hate the player, hate the game" comes to mind as players unwilling to come to a consensus that the game is flawed and adjust the rules so they can follow the intent of the game and not the flaws in the rules of the game.
It's completely possible to look at a system, realize there's a flaw, and not take advantage of it--perhaps even try to fix the flaw you discovered.
In the US, we're increasingly normalizing the culture of "well, it's legal" as to whether we should or shouldn't do something--the baseline of morales is becoming law.
Part of this is driven by competitive forces that put us at critical disadvantages if we don't follow suit. Taking the "high road" often costs more and hinders us to points we can't survive, so even if you don't want to play exploitative games on systems and people, in some cases, your very livelihood may actually depend on it.
"Don't hate the player, hate the game" comes to mind as players unwilling to come to a consensus that the game is flawed and adjust the rules so they can follow the intent of the game and not the flaws in the rules of the game.
> In the US, we're increasingly normalizing the culture of "well, it's legal"
Yes, this makes me sick. I know a disturbing number of people who, to varying degrees, seem to think gaming things without regard to positive-sum outcomes is just... right and normal.
People want to talk about a morality crisis, there's your crisis. Way too many people seem to want to live in Soviet-class corruption.
Yes, this makes me sick. I know a disturbing number of people who, to varying degrees, seem to think gaming things without regard to positive-sum outcomes is just... right and normal.
People want to talk about a morality crisis, there's your crisis. Way too many people seem to want to live in Soviet-class corruption.
> Yes, this makes me sick. I know a disturbing number of people who, to varying degrees, seem to think gaming things without regard to positive-sum outcomes is just... right and normal.
It's right and normal because the US[1] has a very rule-based social system. Break the rules with the best of intentions, and you're not going to have a good time. Follow the rules with the worst of intentions, and you are.
[1] And it is by no means alone in this.
It's right and normal because the US[1] has a very rule-based social system. Break the rules with the best of intentions, and you're not going to have a good time. Follow the rules with the worst of intentions, and you are.
[1] And it is by no means alone in this.
Indeed, reasserting true American values and ideals over the corrupt Soviet ones would help ease some of this moral failing.
One thing that a society under communism has to deal with is reckoning with the fact that, actually, its all a game and there is little difference between what you can get away with, and what is right. In fact the Soviets celebrated and rewarded those people who, as individuals, could play the game best.
while in America we have always valued human enterprise in itself. It's not about the money, it's about collectively coming together to maximize prosperity and well being. People know whats right and good because, as a nation, its manifest that greedy individuals should not be celebrated; goes against the whole idea of the United States that's been there from the start.
It's really sad, I feel like I'm living in the USSR more and more everyday
One thing that a society under communism has to deal with is reckoning with the fact that, actually, its all a game and there is little difference between what you can get away with, and what is right. In fact the Soviets celebrated and rewarded those people who, as individuals, could play the game best.
while in America we have always valued human enterprise in itself. It's not about the money, it's about collectively coming together to maximize prosperity and well being. People know whats right and good because, as a nation, its manifest that greedy individuals should not be celebrated; goes against the whole idea of the United States that's been there from the start.
It's really sad, I feel like I'm living in the USSR more and more everyday
have you ever lived in the soviet union before? or You just read about it from the media? Not to defend the system here. Just a gentle reminder of a bit critical thinking. >its all a game and there is little difference between what you can get away with, and what is right<...Here what about the Jeffery Epstein?
What about Epstein? His misdeeds were only acknowledged when he could no longer get away with them.
Edit: to be clear, I'm pretty sure they intended "right" to be sarcastic in that statement, not that they're actually endorsing something as depraved as cultural relativism.
Edit: to be clear, I'm pretty sure they intended "right" to be sarcastic in that statement, not that they're actually endorsing something as depraved as cultural relativism.
> It takes someone to come along and knowingly look for "ah ha, gotcha" loopholes in a system to exploit for their own advantage.
Obviously it's not a positive thing in this case, but there seems to be a lot in common with a hacker sort of mindset here. Figuring out loopholes in laws seems awfully similar on some level to figuring out how a piece of tech works and making it do goofy things the designers never thought of or intended.
Obviously, ethics enter into the equation, and there's a collection of things that are legal but unethical whether you're talking about legal loopholes or traditional hacking. Though given this discussion I'm able to think of more in the legal realm that's unethical.
Maybe we need an analog to red-teamers in the legal world. I guess that's a lawyer? A certain kind of lawyer anyway.
Obviously it's not a positive thing in this case, but there seems to be a lot in common with a hacker sort of mindset here. Figuring out loopholes in laws seems awfully similar on some level to figuring out how a piece of tech works and making it do goofy things the designers never thought of or intended.
Obviously, ethics enter into the equation, and there's a collection of things that are legal but unethical whether you're talking about legal loopholes or traditional hacking. Though given this discussion I'm able to think of more in the legal realm that's unethical.
Maybe we need an analog to red-teamers in the legal world. I guess that's a lawyer? A certain kind of lawyer anyway.
Need, yes. Have any way of achieving, no. Those holes are a feature, not a bug; to mix metaphors a bit, the black hats are funding the lobbyists.
> It takes someone to come along and knowingly look for "ah ha, gotcha" loopholes in a system to exploit for their own advantage.
This isn't a witty corner-case hack. This is a system intentionally designed to reward insiders.
This isn't a witty corner-case hack. This is a system intentionally designed to reward insiders.
In some countries courts have the option to honor the spirit of the law instead of the letter when deciding in favor of the defendant.
> In some countries courts have the option to honor the spirit of the law instead of the letter when deciding in favor of the defendant.
In the US as well, though the system is geared toward hiding that fact.
Jury nullification is a thing, though if you admit to have heard about it you'll be booted off the jury.
Judges may not have as much leeway in sentencing as they used to, but they do for verdicts, though no judge likes to be reversed on appeal, the threat of which tends to constrain verdicts and opinions (which sometimes seems to lead to more creativity in findings of fact).
In the US as well, though the system is geared toward hiding that fact.
Jury nullification is a thing, though if you admit to have heard about it you'll be booted off the jury.
Judges may not have as much leeway in sentencing as they used to, but they do for verdicts, though no judge likes to be reversed on appeal, the threat of which tends to constrain verdicts and opinions (which sometimes seems to lead to more creativity in findings of fact).
I saw this phrase in the context on how people might cheat stupid rules from their religion without feeling bad about it
> How is putting advertisement on ANYTHING patentable
Because our patent system is broken beyond repair and should be entirely dismantled never to be rebuilt.
Remember cases like this the next time you hear anyone try to justify existence of something like a software patent. A monopoly on ideas is an absurdity laid bare to most people only by glaring examples like this.
Because our patent system is broken beyond repair and should be entirely dismantled never to be rebuilt.
Remember cases like this the next time you hear anyone try to justify existence of something like a software patent. A monopoly on ideas is an absurdity laid bare to most people only by glaring examples like this.
It is a similar innovation to “<anything> on the internet”, just inverted so “advertising on an <anything>”.
It's not clear to me if SecurityPoint's patent is for putting advertisements on the trays. I thought SecurityPoint offered to let TSA use their technology without paying fees, if the TSA would include SecurityPoint ads?
I wonder why we don't implement a Georgist tax on 80%-100% of the value of a patent to discourage patent hoarding and incentivize building on top of patents held. The intellectual property market would become a lot more efficient and productive.
I like this. We should do the same for copyright: the owner of the thing (patent; trademark; copyright) declares a value, then they pay a tax on the value; anyone else can “pay the balance” to buy off the monopoly.
The issue here is that the value of things is not universal, nor is the means to pay such a tax.
For instance, I may discover a manufacturing machine that cuts the cost of building semiconductor chips in half. My options under this model, though, are to either price it low enough that I can actually afford to build up a business on top of it (in which case a bigger company can swoop in, buy the rights from me, and destroy my business) or price it high enough that the incumbents can't afford to buy me off (in which case, the proposed tax will be large enough that it'll stifle my business, and the incumbents can just wait until my business dies on its own.)
The current system is far from perfect, but it does favor upstarts and entrepreneurs' ability to build business rather than incumbents. The big thing I'd love to see is a shortening of the patent exclusivity period before becoming public domain.
For instance, I may discover a manufacturing machine that cuts the cost of building semiconductor chips in half. My options under this model, though, are to either price it low enough that I can actually afford to build up a business on top of it (in which case a bigger company can swoop in, buy the rights from me, and destroy my business) or price it high enough that the incumbents can't afford to buy me off (in which case, the proposed tax will be large enough that it'll stifle my business, and the incumbents can just wait until my business dies on its own.)
The current system is far from perfect, but it does favor upstarts and entrepreneurs' ability to build business rather than incumbents. The big thing I'd love to see is a shortening of the patent exclusivity period before becoming public domain.
> The current system is far from perfect, but it does favor upstarts and entrepreneurs' ability to build business rather than incumbents.
I think exactly the opposite is true. Patents are one of the primary ways that incumbents are able to rent seek on their inventions for decades. These large companies hoard patents, and are legally granted monopoly on a given technology, making direct competition on their invention illegal.
A world without patents would be more enabling to small entrepreneurs, because the amount of things they are allowed to attempt is so much higher than in our current world.
I think exactly the opposite is true. Patents are one of the primary ways that incumbents are able to rent seek on their inventions for decades. These large companies hoard patents, and are legally granted monopoly on a given technology, making direct competition on their invention illegal.
A world without patents would be more enabling to small entrepreneurs, because the amount of things they are allowed to attempt is so much higher than in our current world.
> Patents are one of the primary ways that incumbents are able to rent seek on their inventions for decades. These large companies hoard patents, and are legally granted monopoly on a given technology, making direct competition on their invention illegal.
Totally agreed, and the solution there is (in my opinion) to reduce the duration of such patents to the point where newcomers have a reasonable chance to bootstrap a business based on that patent, but not so long that patents bar competitors from coming to market down the line.
Value-based taxation will always favor those with deep pockets who can afford to pay top dollar to scrape the cream off of small businesses.
Totally agreed, and the solution there is (in my opinion) to reduce the duration of such patents to the point where newcomers have a reasonable chance to bootstrap a business based on that patent, but not so long that patents bar competitors from coming to market down the line.
Value-based taxation will always favor those with deep pockets who can afford to pay top dollar to scrape the cream off of small businesses.
Let's suppose you had some novel idea that would greatly increase the value of a social network, idea X. In the current system, you can patent it, build a working version, and then either sell out to FB or another major tech company (ala Instagram) or go public (like Snapchat). Without patents at all, FB sees your app start to take off, looks at it's key feature, assigns N engineers to duplicate it and rolls it out to billions of users. Your app then is a sad knockoff of FB's shiny new feature, withers and dies.
Meanwhile, with a Georgist tax, either you have to raise hundreds of millions just to pay the tax when created, or FB buys your patent for peanuts.
Meanwhile, with a Georgist tax, either you have to raise hundreds of millions just to pay the tax when created, or FB buys your patent for peanuts.
Has anyone ever had a novel idea for a social network, patented it, and been paid for it by FB?
Because it seems to me, the way the patent system is supposed to work, and the way it actually works in practice, are very different.
Because it seems to me, the way the patent system is supposed to work, and the way it actually works in practice, are very different.
Geoist taxes are always problematic for this reason. I suspect that if the tax valuation is phased in slowly it'd have a good trade-off.
I'm curious what you mean by phasing these in slowly. I've seen the issue crop up in every Georgist or valuation-based tax proposal I've seen, but I'd love to learn more if there are reasonable ways around these bad incentive structures.
I haven't thought about patents. But, for copyrights, I think there should be two "schedules":
1. A fixed original-author schedule which is 28 years, tax free; and,
2. A "work for hire" schedule which is 70+ years, where the Geoist tax is free for the first 7 years, then increases by 1% every 7 years.
Again, the rule is this: you self appraise, and pay your tax. Any other entity can pay the balance due (in my opinion, to the Treasury: the monopoly is granted by the people, not the copyright owner), and it places the copy into the public domain.
For patents... I'd probably say its "free" unless you enforce its monopoly. Then, if you value the patent at "100 million$" you owe the government N-years X percentage X 100 million. Obviously, the valuation isn't the infringing value — infringement is a fraction of its value. That means a patent only "has value" when it's used to enforce its monopoly.
1. A fixed original-author schedule which is 28 years, tax free; and,
2. A "work for hire" schedule which is 70+ years, where the Geoist tax is free for the first 7 years, then increases by 1% every 7 years.
Again, the rule is this: you self appraise, and pay your tax. Any other entity can pay the balance due (in my opinion, to the Treasury: the monopoly is granted by the people, not the copyright owner), and it places the copy into the public domain.
For patents... I'd probably say its "free" unless you enforce its monopoly. Then, if you value the patent at "100 million$" you owe the government N-years X percentage X 100 million. Obviously, the valuation isn't the infringing value — infringement is a fraction of its value. That means a patent only "has value" when it's used to enforce its monopoly.
Part of copyright is the right to exclude. Adding a compulsory buyout provision would make copyright so unrecognizable as to not be a copyright anymore.
Imagine the Hobson's Choice you just offered small-time artists. If you don't want to work with a large publisher, you either have to overvalue your copyright to the point of being buried by ruinsome, confiscatory taxes... or, if you don't want the taxes, then a large publisher can buy you out for pennies on the dollar. What that would mean is that you would lose the legal right to write your own work anymore.
Large publishers would benefit handsomely, as they'd be able to buy into a new market of hilariously undervalued work. You would turn every independent creative endeavor into the highly exploitative contracts that the average record label M&A lawyer writes on a day-to-day basis. Meanwhile, because these companies are already rich and powerful, they can just afford to pay the tax to overvalue their copyrights. So the end result would be a transfer of wealth from artists to publishers.
Furthermore, what happens to any existing licensing agreements? What happens if Microsoft buys out Linus Torvalds or the FSF with the intent of making Linux or GNU proprietary software? Does the GPL still hold, or does the buyout override the licensing agreement? The latter is bad for obvious reasons. The former would allow the use of improper transfers and creative accounting to partially evade the taxation regime. Hold your copyright personally, exclusively license it to an LLC on very generous terms, and then undervalue the copyright on your taxes. If someone does buy you out, they can't terminate the license for at least 35 years - upon which most of the copyright's value will have already been exploited.
What you seem to be asking for is a way to attack large companies for being large. The answer to your question is not to break copyright and patent law (more than it already has); but to actually enforce antitrust law, and reduce the scope and scale of copyright back to something reasonable.
Imagine the Hobson's Choice you just offered small-time artists. If you don't want to work with a large publisher, you either have to overvalue your copyright to the point of being buried by ruinsome, confiscatory taxes... or, if you don't want the taxes, then a large publisher can buy you out for pennies on the dollar. What that would mean is that you would lose the legal right to write your own work anymore.
Large publishers would benefit handsomely, as they'd be able to buy into a new market of hilariously undervalued work. You would turn every independent creative endeavor into the highly exploitative contracts that the average record label M&A lawyer writes on a day-to-day basis. Meanwhile, because these companies are already rich and powerful, they can just afford to pay the tax to overvalue their copyrights. So the end result would be a transfer of wealth from artists to publishers.
Furthermore, what happens to any existing licensing agreements? What happens if Microsoft buys out Linus Torvalds or the FSF with the intent of making Linux or GNU proprietary software? Does the GPL still hold, or does the buyout override the licensing agreement? The latter is bad for obvious reasons. The former would allow the use of improper transfers and creative accounting to partially evade the taxation regime. Hold your copyright personally, exclusively license it to an LLC on very generous terms, and then undervalue the copyright on your taxes. If someone does buy you out, they can't terminate the license for at least 35 years - upon which most of the copyright's value will have already been exploited.
What you seem to be asking for is a way to attack large companies for being large. The answer to your question is not to break copyright and patent law (more than it already has); but to actually enforce antitrust law, and reduce the scope and scale of copyright back to something reasonable.
First, I'm restricting this to the US!
I replied elsewhere, but will reply here, as well. I think there should be two "schedules":
1. A private schedule, which is tax-free which terminates at 28 years or upon any (or all?) of the authors' death, whichever is first; and,
2. A work-for-hire schedule, which begins at 0% tax, and increases by 1% every 7 years after that.
A "private" copyright can be converted to a "work-for-hire" by paying past taxes. A work-for-hire may not be converted to private.
First, when a copyright is "bought out", the payment is made to the Treasury — the copyright is granted by the people via the US government, that is the beneficiary of the buyout. Second, the buyout places the work into the public domain; this is not a transfer sale! Third, the copyright owner can increase the value whenever they feel like, but the valuation can never decrease. For example: the owner could value the copyright at 50 gajillion dollars; at the end of 7 years, if they can't pay the tax on the 50 gajillion dollars, the copyright lapses.
For patents, I think a tax is owed when the patent is enforced in a court of law. I don't know the schedule for that.
I replied elsewhere, but will reply here, as well. I think there should be two "schedules":
1. A private schedule, which is tax-free which terminates at 28 years or upon any (or all?) of the authors' death, whichever is first; and,
2. A work-for-hire schedule, which begins at 0% tax, and increases by 1% every 7 years after that.
A "private" copyright can be converted to a "work-for-hire" by paying past taxes. A work-for-hire may not be converted to private.
First, when a copyright is "bought out", the payment is made to the Treasury — the copyright is granted by the people via the US government, that is the beneficiary of the buyout. Second, the buyout places the work into the public domain; this is not a transfer sale! Third, the copyright owner can increase the value whenever they feel like, but the valuation can never decrease. For example: the owner could value the copyright at 50 gajillion dollars; at the end of 7 years, if they can't pay the tax on the 50 gajillion dollars, the copyright lapses.
For patents, I think a tax is owed when the patent is enforced in a court of law. I don't know the schedule for that.
That's less catastrophically flawed than I thought it would be. Having a tax-free provision for privately-owned or authorially-owned copyrights fixes my main concern with this.
What you're talking about with patents could be handled by just taxing licensing revenues. That would also work for creating a copyright value tax. However, I'm pretty sure we already have ways to tax the proceeds of copyright and patent licensing.
Also, while "buyout to uncopyright the work" is better than "buyout to own the work for yourself", I still think there's some problems with this. Public domain doesn't just mean "everyone owns it", it also means "everyone can reuse it", and when you do that you create a new copyright on that derivative work[0]. This is part and parcel of the reason why copylefts and share-alike licensing exists. It lets you lock things open. Would Microsoft be able to buy out Linus Torvalds in order to evade the GPL on Linux?
[0] This is also why nominally public domain characters like Sherlock Holmes are actually fiendishly difficult to reuse. The estate that owns the still copyrighted part of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work can still sue if your reuse of the public domain character is too close to their copyrighted expression. Notably, this means your Sherlock can't be too human.
What you're talking about with patents could be handled by just taxing licensing revenues. That would also work for creating a copyright value tax. However, I'm pretty sure we already have ways to tax the proceeds of copyright and patent licensing.
Also, while "buyout to uncopyright the work" is better than "buyout to own the work for yourself", I still think there's some problems with this. Public domain doesn't just mean "everyone owns it", it also means "everyone can reuse it", and when you do that you create a new copyright on that derivative work[0]. This is part and parcel of the reason why copylefts and share-alike licensing exists. It lets you lock things open. Would Microsoft be able to buy out Linus Torvalds in order to evade the GPL on Linux?
[0] This is also why nominally public domain characters like Sherlock Holmes are actually fiendishly difficult to reuse. The estate that owns the still copyrighted part of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work can still sue if your reuse of the public domain character is too close to their copyrighted expression. Notably, this means your Sherlock can't be too human.
I'd argue that GPL-licensed works should remain "authorial", and that each commit generates a new derivative object and, thus, a new copyright. In that sense, the "old code" goes into the public domain in ~28 years, but the "tip of tree" remains firmly GPL'd.
If you set a price and multiple people are willing to pay it then it can't be exclusive.
Georgist taxes are taxes on uncreated property i.e. land. Intellectual property is created property, it's just intangible.
Granted, the original idea was on real property. But practically speaking, is there much difference with the way IP law works in the US? Patent trolls are essentially rent seekers, with similar economic effects. Even worse, it's much harder to realize you're infringing a lot of the time. At least with land there are lines in the sand you can look up at a county clerks office.
Practically, enforcement of property rights when it comes to IP is messy, but philosophically, IP is much different than a parcel of land.
> the patent system rewards the people who essentially “call dibs” on ideas like this
Patents are regularly invalidated due to prior art. As long as you document your inventions thoroughly, then even if you don't patent the idea yourself, you can invalidate the person who did. If the people who "call dibs" are being rewarded, it's only because the inventors either weren't patenting, or weren't documenting.
Patents are regularly invalidated due to prior art. As long as you document your inventions thoroughly, then even if you don't patent the idea yourself, you can invalidate the person who did. If the people who "call dibs" are being rewarded, it's only because the inventors either weren't patenting, or weren't documenting.
Calling dibs is still problematic, even with proper documentation... independent inventors often come up with same thing at a later date, because it's obvious, but they are still prevented from using their own invention because someone else had the same idea.
The problem is that the law isn't being enforced with any consistency.
You know what's required for a patent to be awarded? It has to be non-obvious. It has to be something that someone "the typical person in the field" wouldn't think to do, when given that problem to solve.
If the patent office (and later, the courts) would just apply the non-obviousness criteria reasonably we wouldn't have these problems.
And yes, that means they'd likely need to consult with people in various fields. It's not exactly free to get a patent; some of that money could go to pay those same consultants to judge the obviousness of each patent as it is reviewed.
You know what's required for a patent to be awarded? It has to be non-obvious. It has to be something that someone "the typical person in the field" wouldn't think to do, when given that problem to solve.
If the patent office (and later, the courts) would just apply the non-obviousness criteria reasonably we wouldn't have these problems.
And yes, that means they'd likely need to consult with people in various fields. It's not exactly free to get a patent; some of that money could go to pay those same consultants to judge the obviousness of each patent as it is reviewed.
> If the patent office (and later, the courts) would just apply the non-obviousness criteria reasonably we wouldn't have these problems.
Agreed, but given that inventors can endlessly refile with whatever minor tweaks they like, and examiners are incentivised according to the number of patents they grant, it isn't hard to wear them down, eventually.
Courts then presume a patent is valid and it takes a lot of effort to convince them otherwise, and typically it is only prior art that will do it.
Agreed, but given that inventors can endlessly refile with whatever minor tweaks they like, and examiners are incentivised according to the number of patents they grant, it isn't hard to wear them down, eventually.
Courts then presume a patent is valid and it takes a lot of effort to convince them otherwise, and typically it is only prior art that will do it.
>"examiners are incentivised according to the number of patents they grant"
This is completely wrong; their incentive is actually to reject an application. The optimal strategy for an examiner seems to be to reject an application at least twice, usually more. There is abundant literature on this topic, and I encourage you to explore it.
This is completely wrong; their incentive is actually to reject an application. The optimal strategy for an examiner seems to be to reject an application at least twice, usually more. There is abundant literature on this topic, and I encourage you to explore it.
On the plus side, that means that nobody else can put ads there without violating the patent...
> (It boils my blood that the patent system rewards the people who essentially “call dibs” on ideas like this, instead of the people who build things.)
To me that's a really bad take, obsessing on builders, do you see how much additional wasted energy and mindshare that requires?
"woah hey there, I don't respect you because what I wanted you to do was build the security apparatus and tray system yourself and find the product market fit yourself, despite the TSA monopoly on all the checkpoints, don't worry about that part its about how much I respect you, not the higher capital requirements, time requirements and worthlessness of attempting any of this!"
To me that's a really bad take, obsessing on builders, do you see how much additional wasted energy and mindshare that requires?
"woah hey there, I don't respect you because what I wanted you to do was build the security apparatus and tray system yourself and find the product market fit yourself, despite the TSA monopoly on all the checkpoints, don't worry about that part its about how much I respect you, not the higher capital requirements, time requirements and worthlessness of attempting any of this!"
You've got a valid general point about the scapegoating of NPEs. But it isn't applicable here, where the lack of building being referenced is the seeming impossibility of doing anything novel and non-obvious with plastic bins.
If you click through to the patent filing (linked elsewhere in this thread), the claims are quite easy to read. If someone notices something novel in the claims that I've missed, I'd love to be wrong and learn about some fantastic new invention for plastic bins. But all indications are that this is yet another utterly bullshit patent that should never have been granted.
If you click through to the patent filing (linked elsewhere in this thread), the claims are quite easy to read. If someone notices something novel in the claims that I've missed, I'd love to be wrong and learn about some fantastic new invention for plastic bins. But all indications are that this is yet another utterly bullshit patent that should never have been granted.
Right, I actually disagree still, not because of the genericness of the patent itself but because it was a good finesse. And also because we are looking at it from 2021's eyes and not 2001's eyes.
We need to rewind to 2001 and 2002 here, where the priority date of this patent begins.
TSA was created as part of a series of kneejerk reactions to the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks in November 2001. Congress was merely a tool here as there was almost zero original bills passed, just pet projects that enterprisers and war hawks had already written as bills, forwarded to their favorite committees when it was convenient.
Within 8 months this person has their provisional patent filed that predicts how these checkpoints will be structured and how they could further function. July 2002.
Here, I agree that it was patentable because this level of security really was not in use anywhere back then. There was no need for an efficient baggage binning system back then. Just a few government buildings had scanners for just a couple people at a time.
The TSA did not implement this until after this patent holder presented the proposal to them.
The TSA also had a choice of not doing these obvious things. The patent system allows for infinite permutations to be patented, as well as patents to cover many of those permutations. The TSA did a very specific one, this isn't really that ambiguous.
I agree with the patent examiner, I agree with the judge. Also thank you for validating my point about how non-practicing entities get scapegoated way too much, I appreciate that. Hope my perspective still offers more insight others can agree with.
We need to rewind to 2001 and 2002 here, where the priority date of this patent begins.
TSA was created as part of a series of kneejerk reactions to the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks in November 2001. Congress was merely a tool here as there was almost zero original bills passed, just pet projects that enterprisers and war hawks had already written as bills, forwarded to their favorite committees when it was convenient.
Within 8 months this person has their provisional patent filed that predicts how these checkpoints will be structured and how they could further function. July 2002.
Here, I agree that it was patentable because this level of security really was not in use anywhere back then. There was no need for an efficient baggage binning system back then. Just a few government buildings had scanners for just a couple people at a time.
The TSA did not implement this until after this patent holder presented the proposal to them.
The TSA also had a choice of not doing these obvious things. The patent system allows for infinite permutations to be patented, as well as patents to cover many of those permutations. The TSA did a very specific one, this isn't really that ambiguous.
I agree with the patent examiner, I agree with the judge. Also thank you for validating my point about how non-practicing entities get scapegoated way too much, I appreciate that. Hope my perspective still offers more insight others can agree with.
I'd say the shape of our disagreement here follows a fundamental problem with the patent system.
It's impossible to directly refute the argument that it only seems obvious in retrospect, short of finding some people who became isolated/frozen/etc in Y2K and asking them to judge.
Which is why we look to prior art. But that forms a much weaker argument - while we've seen stackable bins and bin aggregation carts for decades, we hadn't seen them in use at high volume invasive security checkpoints, as such checkpoints didn't exist before. Does applying a longstanding technology to a newly needed purpose constitute invention?
The patent system asserts that this answer is undecidable, and thus defaults to issuing a patent. Whereas to everyone else looking at the constructive behavior of this system, it looks an awful lot like lawyers getting paid a bunch of money to generate paperwork that divvies up ownership of the intellectual commons.
It's impossible to directly refute the argument that it only seems obvious in retrospect, short of finding some people who became isolated/frozen/etc in Y2K and asking them to judge.
Which is why we look to prior art. But that forms a much weaker argument - while we've seen stackable bins and bin aggregation carts for decades, we hadn't seen them in use at high volume invasive security checkpoints, as such checkpoints didn't exist before. Does applying a longstanding technology to a newly needed purpose constitute invention?
The patent system asserts that this answer is undecidable, and thus defaults to issuing a patent. Whereas to everyone else looking at the constructive behavior of this system, it looks an awful lot like lawyers getting paid a bunch of money to generate paperwork that divvies up ownership of the intellectual commons.
>"Does applying a longstanding technology to a newly needed purpose constitute invention?"
Yes, if the technology is new in that 'field'.
Yes, if the technology is new in that 'field'.
Sure if you're just describing the patent office's current policy. But based on the number of people who criticize patents for "X with computers" "X over a network" "X with advertising" etc, I'd say most people disagree that's how it should be. Granting monopolies on straightforward implementations of straightforward concepts for simply being the first to register does not drive innovation, it kills it.
Yes, exactly, you put it better than I could have.
The TSA is anyway almost entirely security theatre: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/tsa-bus...
I agree that TSA is ineffective against any sophisticated attack, but couldn't it potentially be a great filter for the many run of mill crazy person? Not suggesting its an efficient use of funds in either case.
The run of the mill crazy person could bomb the TSA lines and easily get dozens or hundreds of people. The reason there aren't more bombings is because there largely aren't people who want to do more bombings.
Or more! I hesitate to write what you did because I didn't wanna end up on one of those lists, but you're absolutely right.
I remember often standing in line at Dulles. Backed up to the escalators, you look down and see the security line completely folded on itself(like the game snake), people filling the entire space logjammed by security. There were easily more people there than on any flight I took out of Dulles.
I remember often standing in line at Dulles. Backed up to the escalators, you look down and see the security line completely folded on itself(like the game snake), people filling the entire space logjammed by security. There were easily more people there than on any flight I took out of Dulles.
Every societies security model relies on people simply not wishing to act violently. Literally followed by a police team and still stabbed people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Auckland_supermarket_stab...
^^^ This, so much this.
Especially with how common we've seen violent outbursts on airplanes since post-pandemic flights have resumed. It's almost a daily occurrence. If those individuals had weapons during flight, the outcomes would be very different.
Leave the detection and prevention of sophisticated threats to agencies better equipped.
Especially with how common we've seen violent outbursts on airplanes since post-pandemic flights have resumed. It's almost a daily occurrence. If those individuals had weapons during flight, the outcomes would be very different.
Leave the detection and prevention of sophisticated threats to agencies better equipped.
You're assuming that the people who are throwing tantrums on planes are premeditating enough to prepare by bringing weapons. Yet if they had those kind of planning faculties, they would realize that flipping out at flight attendants doesn't further their cause at all.
Alternative take: the people throwing tantrums have reached their breaking point from the stress of being in a totalitarian environment [0]. And all the security theater of airports is a major and needless contributor to that stress.
[0] Just to be clear here, I think masks are highly necessary and if I had to fly somewhere I would be wearing a full face P100. But the act of forcing people to wear them is still totalitarian, regardless of how justified it is.
Alternative take: the people throwing tantrums have reached their breaking point from the stress of being in a totalitarian environment [0]. And all the security theater of airports is a major and needless contributor to that stress.
[0] Just to be clear here, I think masks are highly necessary and if I had to fly somewhere I would be wearing a full face P100. But the act of forcing people to wear them is still totalitarian, regardless of how justified it is.
That's the same way I feel about being forced to drive between the lines. I do it because I don't want to kill myself or other drivers, but forcing people to do it is clearly a sign of fascist dictatorship no matter how many lives it saves.
When I pass cyclists on single lane roads I'm generally more than halfway over the dividing line, conditions permitting. If someone gets a ticket for going over a line in a safe and reasonable manner, then yes it is quite appropriate to call that overbearing law enforcement.
Wearing something over your face is annoying. Loops around your ears are irritating. Confronting someone that they need to put something on their face creates an adversarial situation. These are facts that the (otherwise sensible) pro-mask political dogma has rallied around rejecting, rather than focusing on the more enlightened viewpoint that wearing a mask is indeed a burden but we all have the responsibility to do it.
Wearing something over your face is annoying. Loops around your ears are irritating. Confronting someone that they need to put something on their face creates an adversarial situation. These are facts that the (otherwise sensible) pro-mask political dogma has rallied around rejecting, rather than focusing on the more enlightened viewpoint that wearing a mask is indeed a burden but we all have the responsibility to do it.
Not sure if serious or sarcastic. If serious, I'd love to hear more about your world view here.
Run of the mill crazy you say - this happened in last 24 hrs
https://news.yahoo.com/american-airlines-flight-diverted-pas...
https://news.yahoo.com/american-airlines-flight-diverted-pas...
It appears the attacker didn't have a weapon, though, which is the TSA's job you're saying they didn't accomplish?
Yeah I've thought this too. Measuring TSA effectiveness by number of knives, guns, and TNT caught in backpacks seems insufficient, because the very existence of the TSA likely dissuades loonies from considering commercial aircraft as a viable option in their plans. But you can't measure the number of events that never happened, so we can't get a full picture of exactly how many attacks the TSA prevents by existing.
You could measure the number of incidents that didn't happen before the TSA was formed, though
Even the deadly hijackings it was formed to prevent wouldn't ever happen again, since the passengers would fight back now
Even the deadly hijackings it was formed to prevent wouldn't ever happen again, since the passengers would fight back now
Between 1968 and 1972, over 130 commercial aircraft were hijacked in the US. No hijackings have been reported in the US since 2001.
https://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2016-03/hijacki...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/29/hijackings-ra...
https://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2016-03/hijacki...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/29/hijackings-ra...
.... what happened between 1972 and 2001?
Take a look at the graph in my first link. Looks like dozens and dozens of hijackings.
They already advertise on the trays in DIA if I remember correctly. And besides, airport security is a clown show.[0]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa...
Thank you for defending the purity of sanctity of the TSA. I don't know what we would all do if we couldn't look up to TSA as a shining beacon of morality and it turned into a "clown show".
Putting an ad on a tray would at least be somewhere in the top 500 most atrocious things the TSA regularly does.
Putting an ad on a tray would at least be somewhere in the top 500 most atrocious things the TSA regularly does.
>That's literally not free since they would have had to turn the security process into more of a clown show with advertisements.
As I recall (I flew a couple weeks ago), the bins where you need to dump your belt, shoes, carry-on, etc. have advertisements on them.
But even without the ads, the TSA security theater was already a clown show, IMHO.
As I recall (I flew a couple weeks ago), the bins where you need to dump your belt, shoes, carry-on, etc. have advertisements on them.
But even without the ads, the TSA security theater was already a clown show, IMHO.
It depends on whether it's advertising advertising, or just a sticker or maker's mark - you know, the ones these trays and other products in use at airports and security checkpoints already have.
I guess putting ads in the security check area works? If I were the buyer, I would be wondering if people would associate my brand with the negative experience which is airport security.
One of the nice things about China is that they don't sell off naming rights to their stadiums to the highest bidding advertiser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_in_China
That's always bothered me about stadiums here in the US. There's one in Seattle with this joke of a name: "Climate Pledge Arena."
Similar but unrelated, the audacity to post-facto denote something a Netflix Original.
Climate Pledge, brought to you by SC Johnson, cleans and polishes your surfaces in more varied conditions for people who live in extreme climates. Makes sense they'd sponsor a hockey arena. /s
Considering Amazon is paying for that name, I find it far more appealing than "Amazon Prime 2-Day Delivery Arena".
Or "Bang Bros Arena": https://www.insider.com/porn-site-bangbros-bid-10-million-na...
It's the home of the Seattle Krakens. We call it the Krakhaus.
Except former Wukesong Arena in Bejing has been named "MasterCard Center", "LeSports Center" and is now "Cadillac Center". Then there's "Mercedes-Benz Arena" in Shanghai. Shaanxi Province Stadium was for a few years named "Coca-Cola Stadium".
Why is that nice? Shouldn't we want to encourage the rich to finance large projects of cultural benefit?
Not via naming right. It’s garish, feels dystopian, and leads to misplaced incentives, where the building of projects of cultural benefit is affected by how useful their naming rights are for advertisers. Should we also try to auction off names for other large public projects? Dams? Power plants? Schools? Highways?
If we want the rich to finance large projects of cultural benefit, the appropriate mechanism for doing so is via taxation.
If we want the rich to finance large projects of cultural benefit, the appropriate mechanism for doing so is via taxation.
Sounds like a good trade for concentration camps and organ harvesting.
The issue I see here is that would be an acknowledgement of ownership, which leads to greater demands as time passes.
[deleted]
How is that even Patentable?
I mean it doesn't seem to pass the necessary burden of ingenuity as it's IMHO/as far as I can tell just a trivial combination of long known methods.
I mean it doesn't seem to pass the necessary burden of ingenuity as it's IMHO/as far as I can tell just a trivial combination of long known methods.
Well, see, the trays used to be different sizes so you couldn't stack them, so without this patent the TSA wouldn't have thought to do that /s
> A disadvantage to the present system used in security areas is that the trays for holding laptop computers are not part of a uniform system and do not protect the items from possible damage. Therefore, it is possible that multiple size trays that do not in any way correspond with one another may be used at a security area thus making storage of the trays when they are not in use cumbersome.
> A disadvantage to the present system used in security areas is that the trays for holding laptop computers are not part of a uniform system and do not protect the items from possible damage. Therefore, it is possible that multiple size trays that do not in any way correspond with one another may be used at a security area thus making storage of the trays when they are not in use cumbersome.
Well, they could have asked anyone who ever had worked in a ware house for tips.
Probably some people working on there had ideas like that, too.
I mean it's such a common thing that there are EU standardized sizes for stack-able boxes (and as far as I can tell they existed since pre-EU, or at least I can't remember my dad not using them in his little shops storage room).
The sizes are so common that even car manufacturers consider them when designing (some kinds of) cars.
Probably some people working on there had ideas like that, too.
I mean it's such a common thing that there are EU standardized sizes for stack-able boxes (and as far as I can tell they existed since pre-EU, or at least I can't remember my dad not using them in his little shops storage room).
The sizes are so common that even car manufacturers consider them when designing (some kinds of) cars.
I talked to my lunch lady and she thinks she can establish prior art.
As to "how is it patentable," I think lots of other responses are probably right as to the current state of the law, but to me the more interesting question is the policy one: "why should it be patentable." Like, to the extent that patents are a deliberately market-distorting mechanism that's meant to incentivize invention, do they actually work as intended here? Like, does anyone seriously believe that if patents didn't protect this idea, nobody would have "invented" the idea of putting trays on a cart anyway? And assuming they would have, what's the social/public utility of having a patent system with a bar as low as ours, if it doesn't actually incentivize anything at least in the case of these most-seemingly-stupid patents?
Patent law is hard and generalising it is very difficult. It all depends on the nature of the claims.
What can be said, generally, is that patentability isn't assessed with the benefit of hindsight, and a combination of well-known methods may, in some circumstances, be patentable.
What can be said, generally, is that patentability isn't assessed with the benefit of hindsight, and a combination of well-known methods may, in some circumstances, be patentable.
Yeah as ridiculous as this patent is, the context is important here. The TSA tested this method, then refused to license it and continued to use it. In another world where the TSA had no idea about this guy and just came up with this method on their own, this would be a very different case.
This is more of a case of "knowingly infringing on a patent" rather than "infringing on a patent"
This is more of a case of "knowingly infringing on a patent" rather than "infringing on a patent"
Really motivates you to point the obvious ideas out to as many people/companies as you can find before they can think of said obvious ideas themselves (if you somehow have one of these “no brainer” patents)
I’m guessing you haven’t read the claims of the patent yet?
I'm reading it and it seems ridiculous to me.
> It was the final step in the method of claim one – “moving said tray cart to said proximate end of said scanning device” – that was added at the PTO to overcome the examiner’s initial obviousness concern.
So the lynchpin of the case earning this company $100m is the idea of moving trays on a cart from the exit to the entrance.
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/12/22/security_point_ruling.p...
> It was the final step in the method of claim one – “moving said tray cart to said proximate end of said scanning device” – that was added at the PTO to overcome the examiner’s initial obviousness concern.
So the lynchpin of the case earning this company $100m is the idea of moving trays on a cart from the exit to the entrance.
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/12/22/security_point_ruling.p...
[deleted]
This "invention" (see paulgb's link to the patent) sounds far too much like stackable plastic milk crates with $Logo_Of_Dairy printed on the side of 'em.
Or even more like the stackable plastic trays (and carts designed specifically for them) that you could find in the dishroom of most large cafeterias 50+ years ago.
And running actual stacks of those trays through the big dishwashing machine (say, to heat up a bunch of clean soup bowls right before they hit the serving line) was "d'oh, obvious" when I briefly had a dishroom job in the early 1980's.
Or even more like the stackable plastic trays (and carts designed specifically for them) that you could find in the dishroom of most large cafeterias 50+ years ago.
And running actual stacks of those trays through the big dishwashing machine (say, to heat up a bunch of clean soup bowls right before they hit the serving line) was "d'oh, obvious" when I briefly had a dishroom job in the early 1980's.
The patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en
So the "invention" is stackable trays on a cart? :-( I guess it's not just software patents that have become problematic.
It's crazy that patents can be granted for 'inventions' that are nothing more than common sense. Being the first mover on hiring a patent attorney and filing the paperwork should not be rewarded.
I suppose drawing a definitive line where common sense ends and invention begins is difficult so we end up with the current system.
I suppose drawing a definitive line where common sense ends and invention begins is difficult so we end up with the current system.
"Not common sense" is not the legal test for patentability. But it is in effect incorporated within the requirements that a patentable invention be novel, have an inventive step, and be non-obvious (assessed without the benefit of hindsight).
The US Government could dispute the patent claim if they think the so-called invention is not an invention.
The US Government could dispute the patent claim if they think the so-called invention is not an invention.
What stage in the process of disputing the patent's validity are they at?
Are there higher judges they can appeal to for a more rational outcome?
Are there higher judges they can appeal to for a more rational outcome?
Patent disputes in the United States arise in federal jurisdiction.
In relation to a patent infringement matters commenced in the US District Court of the relevant judicial circuit, it can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. In theory it can then be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (as happened in Google v. Oracle), if that court thinks its intervention is warranted.
In relation to issues arising from the grant of a patent (not an infringement action), an appeal can be made to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and then to the Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that court thinks its intervention is warranted.
I read below this is working its way through the appeals process but I'm not sure about its status.
In relation to a patent infringement matters commenced in the US District Court of the relevant judicial circuit, it can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. In theory it can then be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (as happened in Google v. Oracle), if that court thinks its intervention is warranted.
In relation to issues arising from the grant of a patent (not an infringement action), an appeal can be made to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and then to the Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that court thinks its intervention is warranted.
I read below this is working its way through the appeals process but I'm not sure about its status.
Basically that, plus swapping the carts when more trays are needed at the inlet, plus putting advertising on everything. How "putting an ad on a visible surface" even passes the smell test is beyond me, but those claims are valid it seems...
> the "invention" is stackable trays on a cart?
Look at the claims, not the general descriptions. "A better stapler" may just be a stapler, but that description elides the novel mechanism contained within. (There may be no novel mechanism here. I don't know. I'm not a cart expert.)
Look at the claims, not the general descriptions. "A better stapler" may just be a stapler, but that description elides the novel mechanism contained within. (There may be no novel mechanism here. I don't know. I'm not a cart expert.)
If you look at the claims they actually patented this (I translated it into English):
> For a scanner with a near and far end, position one cart near the near end. Remove a tray from the cart. Pass it through the scanner. Put the tray in a second cart at the far end of the scanner. Move the second cart to the near end of the scanner.
I'm not exaggerating. That's what claim 1 says. If you do that they can sue you for infringement.
The subordinate claims talk about stackable trays, but you only have to infringe claim 1 to be infringing. Claim 1 is written as broadly as possible in order to "catch" as many infringers as possible, and then the subordinate claims are there in case the courts actually rule that claim 1 was too broad.
So you can say "Fine, we can't patent using a cart to move trays, but what about claim 3? We patented using stackable trays! That's very novel!"
> For a scanner with a near and far end, position one cart near the near end. Remove a tray from the cart. Pass it through the scanner. Put the tray in a second cart at the far end of the scanner. Move the second cart to the near end of the scanner.
I'm not exaggerating. That's what claim 1 says. If you do that they can sue you for infringement.
The subordinate claims talk about stackable trays, but you only have to infringe claim 1 to be infringing. Claim 1 is written as broadly as possible in order to "catch" as many infringers as possible, and then the subordinate claims are there in case the courts actually rule that claim 1 was too broad.
So you can say "Fine, we can't patent using a cart to move trays, but what about claim 3? We patented using stackable trays! That's very novel!"
> We patented using stackable trays!
I'd just start gesturing wildly at cafeteria trays that have been around for decades.
I'd just start gesturing wildly at cafeteria trays that have been around for decades.
Yeah but did you put them on a cart? No!! N.. oh you did. Ok fine but did you put them on a cart near an X-ray machine? Ha!
I’m usually one to defend patents on the grounds that the claims are far more narrow than the general idea being criticized in internet comments… that being said, claim 1 is, on its face, very broad. Like super broad. I’d be curious to check out the prosecution history and the spec on this to see if there’s anything limiting in there. Because in plain language, claim 1 is … broad.
Way more on the TSA’s side after reading the patent for sure. Amazed that the U.S. patent systems enables stuff like this.
I guess this counts as novel and non-obvious then:
> One embodiment of the present invention may be a system including a security scanning device through which objects may be passed, having a proximate end and a distal end, a plurality of trays, and a plurality of tray carts adapted to receive the trays, wherein the plurality of trays are provided in a first tray cart at the proximate end of the scanning device, and wherein the trays are adapted to be passed through the scanning device at the proximate end, and wherein the trays are received in a second tray cart after passing through the scanning device at the distal end of the scanning device, and wherein the second cart is adapted to be relocated to the proximate end of the scanning device.
> One embodiment of the present invention may be a system including a security scanning device through which objects may be passed, having a proximate end and a distal end, a plurality of trays, and a plurality of tray carts adapted to receive the trays, wherein the plurality of trays are provided in a first tray cart at the proximate end of the scanning device, and wherein the trays are adapted to be passed through the scanning device at the proximate end, and wherein the trays are received in a second tray cart after passing through the scanning device at the distal end of the scanning device, and wherein the second cart is adapted to be relocated to the proximate end of the scanning device.
Better to look at the claims, which define the scope of rights granted. That said, the broadest claim pretty much tracks this language. I wonder if the broadest claim survived, or if the verdict was based on a narrower dependent claim.
Translation: a stack of trays on one side of the xray machine, that get passed through the xray machine to the other side, where they are put in a second stack. The second stack can be moved as a stack (presumably on wheels or something) back to the near side of the xray.
Does it? What’s the novel part? Using two carts so you don’t have to wheel the empty one around? That doesn’t sound novel to me. I’ve don’t that at the grocery store before.
Wow. There is no positive outcome in this case.
If the patent troll wins, we lose, and low quality shit patents are further confirmed.
If the TSA wins, it allows the TSA to continue to incinerate cash in a never ending play of "security theater".
If the patent troll wins, we lose, and low quality shit patents are further confirmed.
If the TSA wins, it allows the TSA to continue to incinerate cash in a never ending play of "security theater".
I don't think TSA's cash-burning security theater is under any real threat either way.
I wonder if it would be a good idea to form an NPE solely to assert patents against the government. It might finally irk them enough to improve the patent laws.
I imagine if you specifically targeted Congress or the Executive Office you might get some movement. A voting related patent would be amusing. They would have to violate your patent to do anything about it.
All so that we could take our shoes off even though there was only the one shoe related incident some years ago. When will we have enough of this security theater? The costs just keep mounting.
Don't worry, soon the TSA will pay millions for electromagnetic scanning mats so you don't have to take your shoes off: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/28/lifestyle/please-do-n...
It's broken-windows adopted as public policy rather than recognized as a fallacious waste.
BRB, filing a patent for taking your shoes off.
The examiner initially rejected this patent filing due to obviousness. Can someone please explain to me like I'm stupid how it was eventually ruled valid in court?
The examiner rejected it as obvious. More limitations were added that made it no longer obvious. It's the new version that was ruled valid.
Consider (120 years ago) a patent on "using energy to move a vehicle quickly". Well, that's stupid and obvious. But using an ICE to move a car was not. So you add more details and limits until it's no longer obvious.
Consider (120 years ago) a patent on "using energy to move a vehicle quickly". Well, that's stupid and obvious. But using an ICE to move a car was not. So you add more details and limits until it's no longer obvious.
More limitations were added that made it no longer obvious
You mean this one?
"... moving said tray cart to said proximate end of said scanning device"
I guess my bar for non-obvious is a lot higher.
You mean this one?
"... moving said tray cart to said proximate end of said scanning device"
I guess my bar for non-obvious is a lot higher.
The most recent ruling in this case is available here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=506583781665731...
Validity was addressed back in 2016, but has not been reviewed on appeal yet. If others can find a link to that case, it might help folks understand what's happening here.
Here's the ruling where validity is analyzed by the court (again, which has not been reviewed on appeal as far as I can tell): https://cite.case.law/fed-cl/129/25/
This is probably the key passage in the validity ruling: "Defendant’s disavowal in pretrial practice of having its experts combine prior art was a serious handicap at trial." Not a good place to be as a defendant in a patent suit.
Can you explain this more for me?
Basically, the TSA didn’t try to establish that prior art for this patent existed? Why would they not do that? Is it too late for them to try now?
Basically, the TSA didn’t try to establish that prior art for this patent existed? Why would they not do that? Is it too late for them to try now?
TSA's counsel argued that the asserted patent was obvious in view of one prior art reference that disclosed scanning trays and a second prior art reference that disclosed carts at both ends of a machine processing trays. To make this argument, they needed an expert witness to say that it would have been obvious to combine the two prior art references in the way claimed. My read of this comment is that they failed to get their expert witness on record as having that opinion before trial, and so they were prevented from effectively presenting the position at trial. This is the sort of thing that keeps patent attorneys up at night.
Well, the USA has refused to deal with their bad patent system that has enabled generations of patent trolls to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us due to lobbying(I use the term in the East Texas bribery sense), and now they have got bit.
Live by the sword.....
I see a lot of discussion assuming the patent covers "putting an ad on a tray." Claim 1 of [1] says (when you see the word "said" you can just replace it with "the" -- it doesn't become any more legal just because it has "said")
A method comprising: positioning a first tray cart containing trays at the proximate end of a scanning device through which objects may be passed, wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a distal end, removing a tray from said first tray cart, passing said tray through said scanning device from said proximate end through to said distal end, providing a second tray cart at said distal end of said scanning device, receiving said tray passed through said scanning device in said second tray cart, and moving said second cart to said proximate end of said scanning device so that said trays in said second cart be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end.
There are 14 dependent claims, all depending from claim 1. We don't see anything about "advertising" until claim 4.
If you knock out claim 1, then all the others fall as well. I won't even try to defend claim 1 -- if you're saying "how else would you do it?" you're on the right track).
[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en
A method comprising: positioning a first tray cart containing trays at the proximate end of a scanning device through which objects may be passed, wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a distal end, removing a tray from said first tray cart, passing said tray through said scanning device from said proximate end through to said distal end, providing a second tray cart at said distal end of said scanning device, receiving said tray passed through said scanning device in said second tray cart, and moving said second cart to said proximate end of said scanning device so that said trays in said second cart be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end.
There are 14 dependent claims, all depending from claim 1. We don't see anything about "advertising" until claim 4.
If you knock out claim 1, then all the others fall as well. I won't even try to defend claim 1 -- if you're saying "how else would you do it?" you're on the right track).
[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en
CMV: As much as I hate the TSA (and security theatre in general) this is a bad patent and feels more like a loss than a win.
The patent system needs to be abolished. People patenting trays is "patently" ridiculous. Patents crush innovation. Ideas are worthless, execution is everything.
And most patents are built on top of the work of others who did not patent their ideas. If they did, then those derivatives would not be able to exist.
What was the actual method? I've been through airports where trays were returned using a second set of rollers going in the opposite direction, and I've been through airports were they were manually collected in an ad hoc fashion when they were either close to running out or already had run out on the supply side. Needless to say, the latter approach results in total cluster forks.
[deleted]
Nope, sovereign immunity insulates federal government from patent or copyright claims.
> states enjoy unfettered sovereign immunity with respect to copyright, trademark, and patent infringement claims in federal court
https://www.vorys.com/publications-2574.html
> states enjoy unfettered sovereign immunity with respect to copyright, trademark, and patent infringement claims in federal court
https://www.vorys.com/publications-2574.html
Actually, sovereign immunity protects states, but not the federal government.
(In the specific case of IP, not in general. This is because the fed. gov. waived sovereign immunity for itself and the states, but the courts found that the fed. gov. couldn't waive the immunity on the state's behalf.)
(In the specific case of IP, not in general. This is because the fed. gov. waived sovereign immunity for itself and the states, but the courts found that the fed. gov. couldn't waive the immunity on the state's behalf.)
Slightly off topic: “Travel speeds are back to 1960’s with incredibly low tech airport security process” - Peter Thiel.
At this point, we need to throw the baby and the bath water, discard the entire security theater and have some SV company innovate in this area.
Edit: I suspect the downvotes are because I quoted Peter Thiel. Very reasonable.
At this point, we need to throw the baby and the bath water, discard the entire security theater and have some SV company innovate in this area.
Edit: I suspect the downvotes are because I quoted Peter Thiel. Very reasonable.
No, because removing restrictions or changing how we do it would compromise "safety". I put that word in quotes because it's not actual safety, it's the feeling of safety.
Masks on airplanes are the same deal. There have been numerous reports that masks don't provide that much protection, airplanes have superior air filtering systems, yada yada yada. Yet the FAA will likely keep extending the mask mandate indefinitely. The masks don't make us any safer, hell they might make us less safe when you consider the number of "mask related" unruly passengers. But they provide "safety", and that's the key driver here.
Really this trend can be seen everywhere. We make sacrifices as a society to feel "safe". Whether that thing we are doing is actually making us safer is irrelevant, it's all about feeling good about yourself and your "safe" decisions.
Masks on airplanes are the same deal. There have been numerous reports that masks don't provide that much protection, airplanes have superior air filtering systems, yada yada yada. Yet the FAA will likely keep extending the mask mandate indefinitely. The masks don't make us any safer, hell they might make us less safe when you consider the number of "mask related" unruly passengers. But they provide "safety", and that's the key driver here.
Really this trend can be seen everywhere. We make sacrifices as a society to feel "safe". Whether that thing we are doing is actually making us safer is irrelevant, it's all about feeling good about yourself and your "safe" decisions.
We can do what Israel does, and assign a risk rating to everyone entering the airport:
https://www.businessinsider.com/israels-ben-gurion-airport-s...
However, this system basically automatically applies increased risk to certain nationalities and cultures.
Are we willing to trade political correctness for a better security system?
https://www.businessinsider.com/israels-ben-gurion-airport-s...
However, this system basically automatically applies increased risk to certain nationalities and cultures.
Are we willing to trade political correctness for a better security system?
Not everyone knows the government has ‘March in rights’ when it comes to national security concerns. Eg it can decide that it needs to immediately use certain technology and violate IP in certain circumstances.
I'm sorry, but isn't $100M a rounding error to USG ? That's like one missile or a toilet seat or something...
How many trillions does the US government owe? Is anyone even counting at this point? Just add it to the pile.
[deleted]
St. Petersburg, Florida-based SecurityPoint's founder Joseph Ambrefe offered the TSA a license to his patent in 2005 in exchange for the exclusive right to advertise on the trays at U.S. airports.
The TSA had success testing SecurityPoint's technology and equipment, but refused SecurityPoint's offer.
The court said the TSA began using the same method with its own equipment later that year at most or all of the airports under its control, and SecurityPoint sued the U.S. government for patent infringement in 2011.
The government conceded that it had used the technology since 2008 in 10 airports including Dallas/Fort Worth, Boston Logan, Phoenix Sky Harbor and all three major Washington, D.C.-area airports.
The court rejected the government's arguments that SecurityPoint's patent was invalid in 2015, leaving questions about the extent of the government's infringement and how much it owed in damages.